About your Search

20130211
20130219
STATION
MSNBCW 6
MSNBC 5
CSPAN2 3
CNN 1
CNNW 1
FBC 1
KQED (PBS) 1
WETA 1
WMPT (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 27
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27 (some duplicates have been removed)
of this committee strongly opposed president obama's foreign-policy. regardless of how we may feel about the president's policies, or float on senator hagel nomination will not change those policies. there is a risk here it is that the defeat of this domination will leave the department of defense leaderless at a time when we face in this budgetary challenges in our military is engaged in combat operations overseas. such an absence of senior leaders would be unlikely to benefit either our national defense or men and away uniform, and i would add, given the recent explosion of a nuclear device by north korea, the delay in adopting this nomination and approving it, i think, will send the exact wrong message to north korea. the president needs to have a secretary of defense in him he has stressed who will give him unvarnished advice, a person of integrity and one who has a personal understanding of the consequences of decisions relative to the use of military force. senator hagel certainly has those critically important qualifications, and he is well qualified to lead department of defense.
. "state of the union" address tonight and foreign policy will not be the focus of the "state of the union" address, probably, but it will come up. tonight the president is dealing with the first major foreign policy crisis of the second term. north korea has conducted a third nuclear test. with the apparent goal of obtaining a warhead that could threaten the u.s. chief washington correspondent james rosen at the state department on today's test. >> the test was conducted in a safe and perfect way, on a high level with the use of a smaller and light a-bomb, unlike priest ones, yet with great explosion i power. all that and the alarming claim of min neurodevice that couldn't confirmed appeared to be true. in an emergency morning session, the-up security council went through what the u.n. ambassador susan rice called the usual drill. >> we and others have a number of further measures we will be discussing with the council members in various spheres that will not only tighten the existing measures but we aim to augment the sanctions regime that is quite strong, as implemented in 1874 and 208
will address not only domestic issues tonight, north reasserted itself into a foreign policy discussion with its destination of the nuclear bomb. the rogue state testing the bomb underground. the third test testing just over six years. north korea's fledgling dictator showcased his military might. the countries around the world including north korea's closest ally are condemning the north korean government. fox news chief washington correspondent james rose and as our response. >> the test was conducted in a safe and perfect way of high level with the use of a smaller and like a-bomb. unlike the previous ones year with great explosive power and with all that even the alarming claim about the use of a miniature rise to the clear device which could not immediately be different -- confirmed appear to be true. they went through what u.s. ambassador susan rice called the usual drill. >> we and others have a number of measures we will be discussing with councilmembers in various spheres that will not only tighten the existing measures but we aim to augment the sanctions regime that is already
house did during the benghazi attack. he told "foreign policy" magazine, quote, we need to know what the president's conversations were. i would vote no on cloture on thursday unless the information is provided. by tuesday -- actually by yesterday, which almost every day of the week he's changed his mind, the white house had responded to his satisfaction, but he still didn't vote for cloture. he still wouldn't vote to bring this matter of hagel's confirmation up to a vote, and here is his latest. let's watch. >> there are still questions outstanding. i believe that senators have the right to have those questions answered. the senator from south carolina and the senator from new hampshire and i had a response from the president today on the question that we had, but there are other questions. >> like can you give us a copy of every speech you ever gave? can you give us a dollar-for-dollar assessment of every dollar you ever made? by the way, if you don't tell us, we're going to accuse you of getting money from the north koreans. that's the way we will pay you. joy, you're younger than
support from senior statesman, defense and foreign policy organizations and the jittery 31 hearing he was endorsed enthusiastically by to former chairman of the committee the senators on the mission has been endorsed by five former secretary of defense who served under democratic and republican presidents, gates , a calling, perry, a brown and ugly year and endorsed by three former secretaries of state of six former national security advisers. receive letters of undress and from nine former ambassadors who worked on middle east issues and 11 and retired officers and 50 embassadors in national security officials. supported by the major groups of american veterans including iraq and afghanistan veterans of america, of vfw, a vietnam vets of america, and that an american legion and receive support from the military officers association of america, and the noncommissioned officers it is underscored by "war and peace" and i believe he enlisted in at army and received two purple hearts for the combat infantry badge. he served as deputy administrator during the reagan ministration and was tw
foreign policy magazine, quote, we need to know what the president's conversations were. i would vote no on cloture on thursday unless the information is provided. by tuesday, actually by yesterday, almost every day of the week he's changed his mind, the white house responded to his satisfaction but still didn't vote for cloture. still wouldn't bring this matter up to a vote. here's his latest. let's watch. >> there are still questions outstanding. i believe that senators have the right to have those questions answered. senator from south carolina and senator from new hampshire had a response from the president today on the question that we had. but there are other questions. >> like can you give us a copy of every speech you ever gave? give us a dollar for dollar assessment of every dollar you ever made. if you don't tell us we're going to accuse you of getting money from the north koreans. joy, you're younger than me, i think, by a lot of years and i have it to tell you, this does -- we're going to get to this. i'm going to sell this second segment coming up. we went back and looked
of the union address here in washington, this is the first foreign policy crisis of his second term. state department officials say the u.s. and its allies in the far east have been spending the last year telling north korean dictator that pyongyang can enjoy better relations in the world if they abandon that you are michael program. the message is stern. >> to address the situation posed by north korea's threatening activity, u.n. security council will deliver a swift and strong response by way of the security council resolution. >> reporter: at around 10:00 last night, u.s. geological survey recorded a seismic event that was twice the magnitude of the second test back in 2009. they say this time is different because it appears not to be an experiment but the test of an operational nuclear bomb. >> it appears this is uranium weapon that has been totally weaponized and capable to be made into a delivery system. a threat that may have bone a decade off before the test, it now appears to be three to five years off with this new breakthrough by the north koreans. >> you heard the general scal
the administration and crank can do together. yes, there will be things about foreign policies, gun control infrastructure clean energy. but the white house has gone far and beyond than in previous speeches where the president is going to be speaking directly to the american people without the filter of washington reporters and pundits. secondly the white house has been talking a lot about making republicans own the cuts in spending, the sequester. when you hear the white house say repeatedly, a lot of speech is going to be focused on the economy, and the president is going to argue that $85 billion in spending cuts could wreck the economy, and it's the republicans' responsibility to help avoid that. this comes across as a much more partisan speech. a lot of people were anticipating just a few weeks ago. >> michael: let's talk about the partisanship of the speech. we heard that inauguration speech. how do you think--that was partisan in a lot of people's minds. i didn't see it as partisan. i sort of saw it as progressive and forward-thinking. but when you think about what the president is g
of the union address, but a nuclear test from a growing threat overseas has foreign policy back in the spotlight. joining me now for our daily fix, chris calizza, managing editor of post politics.com, and mike allen, politico's chief white house correspondent. welcome both, chris. the timing of this -- in terms of the -- what north korea might be doing. we've got the south korean inaugural coming up february 25th. the state of the union tonight. the president still will speak tonight about north korea. his focus is on the economy and his outline for the budget plans. >> first of all, i generally believe certainly in domestic politics that in terms of teaming and that's probably true. we expabded it to the global state. i will say senior advisor to the president earlier today said, look, north korea was going to be in this speech anyway. yes, the president will address it. you're right. ultimately this is a speech that is focused on the economy. the president has gone a little bit wayward. i think of his own choosing to talk about immigration, gun rights. in some ways the gun rig
're going to do that unless there is a political or a foreign policy reason for them not to do it. >> i mean there's been the questions about responding to sanctions. i mean even today people are wondering, is it tied to state of the union. is it sort of a direct, you know, push against the u.s.? >> i don't think so. i mean, in 2009 we heard this exact same thing. it was a condemnation of their april 2009 missile launch. the north koreans six weeks later conducted a second nuclear test in which they said it was because of the condemnation that occurred over their missile tests. you know, the response to that is that's nonsense. nobody conducts nuclear tests because they've been chastised over a missile test. more specifically, i would say if you're looking at a concurrence of time, it's not the state of the union. it's the two weeks prior to the inauguration of a new south korean president. >> brown: to another part of the world. we'll get back to that. let me ask james acton, the north korean official news agency referred to this as a miniaturized and lighter nuclear device with greater exp
will be back home by this time yex neanext year. it is a big foreign policy to be made, it's expected to be largely about economic issues and the middle class. >> what do you think, is it going to be partisan or more of an olive branch? >> i don't think it will be either, if i can be so bold as to take something that you're not offering a choice that you're not offering. >> you may take it as always. >> i think he will be assertive. i think he will not perceive, he and the white house will not perceive what he's saying as overtly confrontational. i'm sure it will be interpreted that way. i don't anticipate a big olive branch of a speech. he'll talk about common sense measures republicans have supported in the past and stlu as bipartisan. >> the agenda on immigration, gun control, climate by definition, pre-stage conflict with republicans who are ambivalent at best about moving forward on anything. on the other hand, on the big issue of the debt and deficit, since the summer of 2011 he has signaled that he is willing to make a big deal, including some elements, maybe less than two year
military and deals heavily with our foreign policy, you need someone that can get the trust of the u.s. senate. if you've had someone that's broken a lot of personal connections and has really upset, anger and inflamed a large portion of the u.s. senate, maybe they're not the best choice for the position. >> jimmy, is there anything about this that says, look, this is a weakness on president obama's part? he's unable to get as a second-term president even his cabinet confirmed without this kind of melee. >> no, i think basically its illustrative of where we are in modern politics. i expect these kinds of things from the house. i expect the majority to rule over the minority in the house whether that's democrats or the republicans. that's the way the founding fathers set it up. but the senate was always supposed to be a club of 100, a cozy place. when i worked there, you could have disagreements on the floor. but off the camera, you had staffers, including me, running around, making deals, what do you need? i'll give you this if you give me this. this is what my boss needs. that's how
in iraq, the decision to help prevent our losing that war when he said was the most dangerous foreign policy blunder since vietnam. it's quite obvious now that that statement was his tree i don't know nick, woe -- was histrionic, woefully uninformed and absurd. i didn't raise it at senator hagel's hearing for an i told you so moment but to determine he if senator hagel recognizes he was in error. and more importantly, if that recognition informs his judgment today. i wanted to know if he had learned from his mistakes. unfortunately, i'm not confident that he has. after two weeks of reviewing his record, my concerns about whether senator hagel is ready to serve as secretary of defense have not diminished. nothing in senator hagel's background indicates that he would effectively manage the department of defense. in today's unprecedented environment of fiscal uncertainty, ensuring that defense investment decisions affecting an agency as massive and unwieldy as the department of defense do not adversely impact our military readiness is enormously challenging. it requires that the secretar
on capitol hill blasting the obama administration, the chairman of the house foreign affairs committee, republican ed royce, is calling on the administration to replace what he calls a failed north korea policy. chief white house or correspondent ed henry is live on the north lawn. ed, do we expect the president to mention this north korea mess in his state of the union speech tonight? and if so, if i may, how does it fit into his agenda? >> reporter: sure, arthel. bottom line is the president's aides say he is likely to mention this essentially failed test by the north koreans tonight. they are deeply concerned here at the white house, though, that know keeps doing these tests. as you say, the president put out a written statement calling this provocative, and they're basically saying, though, in the end it didn't really work, is so they don't think north korea is as far along in their nuclear program as certainly north korea hopes. nonetheless, we think the president will mention it, not dwell on it tonight. instead, he wants to talk about the economy and jobs according to top aides.
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27 (some duplicates have been removed)